It’s always funny when “know-it-alls” dismiss certain methods as useless or “impracticable.” One “victim” of this line of thinking is the “cross arm” or “X” block (for lack of a better term).

We often hear phrases like the “X-block myth.” Usually this catchy “hook” leads to a rant condemning this technique in the strongest terms. Those who “know better” decry the “obvious” flaws in this basic method and are more than eager to point out the disastrous consequences that await anyone foolish enough to use it.

Let’s take another look at this:

For our example, we’ll be using the “standard” overhead X block against an overhead “ice pick” grab attack with a knife.

Now many “experts” will demonstrate how this “defense” can be “countered”. How the “defender” is left open to any number of devastating “follow-ups”. One of the most commonly cited methods is the “ripping” cut which will severely cut into the defender’s wrists. The attacker slams their blade down, the defender “crosses the arm” blocks, and then the attacker slashes down and back. Sounds good, but is it REALISTIC?

This is usually demonstrated by having Mr. Expert set up the stage. The overhead stab goes in, the victim blocks, Mr. Expert shows how easily he can counter the “defense” attempt. Teacher. Real world? NO!

Why?

Consider the elements of violence in the real world.

The possibility that either of the “parties” involved KNOWS the ability or “training” of the other is very remote. So neither individual KNOWS in advance what the other will do, how the “victim” will react. A violent criminal attack is FAST, BRUTAL and IMMEDIATE. The abuser is NOT looking for a fight, a duel or a prolonged commitment. It features SPEED, SHOCK and BRUTALITY. Think about this. If YOU were to “remove” someone, wouldn’t you do it the MOST convenient way? It would be ONE violent, powerful and fast attack. ADD to this RAGE, HATE, INTENT and the DESIRE to commit chaos and it should be obvious that real world attack is NOT a “chess” game of movement and “counterattack”. If the attacker wants to “make you” he will try to achieve it with ONE fully committed ROUND.

To mediate one’s attack in the real world is to invite failure! No one goes “half a step” in this regard.

The almost instinctive maneuver of the cross block is a SURVIVAL reaction. It’s a convulsive gross motor skill designed to SAVE your life NOW. It’s a brutal “attack” against the assault, NOT a passive “capture” of the attack.

The merciless, fast and brutal nature of the assault is designed to SHOCK and FREEZE the “victim”. The attacker is NOT thinking two moves ahead, HE IS THINKING NOW!

The victim who REACTS in the same way, with a quick, brutal and committed “defense”, will gain a MOMENTARY advantage with this REACTION ATTACK.

SIMPLE PHYSICS: A body in motion tends to stay in motion. The assault was “destined” to be successful. The “failure” of this immediate attack WILL FORCE the attacker to make a CONSCIOUS decision after the initial “failure” of the attack! The “Oh SH!T” principle. Plan “A” failed, NOW WHAT. There certainly may be a “counter-attack” or “follow-up” attempt, BUT IT WILL NOT BE SEAMLESS!

Only in the “training” environment do these perfect combinations of maneuvers “work”. And usually only when one party KNOWS what the expected “response” will be. Real life is not like that!

Let’s say I’m walking down the street and Joey Bag-a-donuts decides to plunge a hunting knife into my neck or chest, well he doesn’t KNOW me by a can of beans right? Does anyone think he’ll mediate his attack as long as he’s considering MY response to his attack and then plan follow-up counters to my reaction? Let’s go. That makes no sense. Unless it’s Kreskin, he has NO way of knowing what will happen after his initial attack. You are NOT hedging his bets. He IS looking for the first strike/quick KILL.

The X “block” works for the purpose it was designed for. IT MAY SAVE YOUR ASS! Of course, it should be chained to an immediate and violent attack, but as an “opening” gambit it does the job well.

Also consider real world contingencies. Many highly touted “defenses” include maneuvers that MAY be IMPOSSIBLE to pull off due to a number of unforeseen circumstances. You could put an individual through any number of scenarios that would eliminate ANY reaction other than the one we’re discussing.

Charlie Nelson would often demonstrate a technique effectively only to have the “know-it-all’s” bruised ego respond with…… “Ok, let me see you do that AGAIN.”

Charlie would reply……….”It only has to WORK ONCE”.

And that’s really the bottom line……..

IT ONLY HAS TO WORK ONCE!

Copyright 2003 thetruthaboutselfdefense.com©